Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essential Mixes (Avril Lavigne album)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. The consensus of this discussion is that there is insufficient sourcing for an article at this time. I am happy to userfy this article if someone wants to hold on to it and add sources if they appear. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Essential Mixes (Avril Lavigne album)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This album does not appear to be an official release by Avril Lavigne. Her website and her record label (RCA) don't mention it at all. In fact, the Sony CMG website has recently removed it from their own website. The ONLY place this cd can be found seems to be amazon.co.uk. Whether it's a real album or not, it is clearly not a notable one.  ~ [ Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  23:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless the artist put their stamp on it, remix albums are almost universally unnotable. No sources and no official logos even on the MS Paint-quality album art.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  —  Gongshow  Talk 04:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, it has not had a chance to establish notability, hasn't even been released yet, and has 6 acoustic songs that are not remixes. Apparently Sony CMG is releasing a lot of "essential mixes" albums on September 20th, like Timberlake, Kylie Minogue, Usher... take a look here. It is possible, with such high profile artists included in this series that a month from now, these compilations may be notable (I understand the futility in may and not had a chance, mind you). - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed to delete per discussion, but I would still suggest incubation in the case that it is released, if not, we can always rebuild it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theornamentalist (talk • contribs) 11:08, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – There is no proof that the album is even being released, especially if its own distributor removed it from its own website. There has been no coverage on the release, no statement by the artist, no statement by the distributor or manufacturer or label, no reason for its existence. As for waiting for the article to become notable, that would go against anything I've ever learned on Wikipedia being a viable tertiary source of information for only notable topics. Notability should be established first, and then the article can be reinstated. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  04:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is an official album that will relase by Sony BMG. Vitor  Mazuco  Msg 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Strong Delete This article has zero verifiable sources, and it's advertising for a product which may or may not become available in September. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - unreleased, no reliable sources, fails WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To Quote WP:NALBUMS - "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." This information has neither been confirmed by the artist nor their record label--which is not the record label this CD is possibly being released through--Sony CMG. Best policy in favor of deletion here.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  15:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see, I wonder why Sony took it off their website... well, if it comes back up, I would support keeping the article or rebuilding it, as I'm sure you would. Anyway, on a related topic, I was checking out her discography and I found a few EP's which I believe should be included in this discussion:
 * Control Room – Live EP
 * Live Acoustic (Avril Lavigne EP)
 * Angus Drive
 * Yes, these are "released" (some as download) by a notable artist under her record company (per WP:NALBUMS), but there is virtually no reliable independent coverage, in fact, almost no coverage besides tracklistings on websites that are either music databases or selling it. These EP's do not typically offer new tracks or b-sides, just live stuff or songs that already appear on a record, which I've seen countless times be deleted, like Radiohead (bolded simply because they are by most accounts a more popular band) articles on EP's, live stuff like this. The Kohl's citation has absolutely nothing about sales figures for these albums, which could support the idea of each having an article, but I have found nothing about those figures; where did they come from? Anyway... I would like to hear your rationale for keeping these, as I've seen you've contributed to them, but have not nominated them. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I have zero rationale for keeping them. They are not even on my watchlist, or my QuickLinks in my userpage.  Usually the edits I make to these types of articles are just as an inclusion to edits I make to the entire Avril Lavigne realm.  The reason I nominated this Essential Mixes album is because it was a new article that seems to be causing confusion as to its authenticity. As for the EPs, they could come or go and I would have no opinion (I probably wouldn't even notice).  I don't have an opinion either way on those. =D  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - You're not understanting about it, this is an official album, that will relase by Sony BMG, please see here and here, will you see that source are good and in fact is really this album. Vitor  Mazuco  Msg 16:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was looking for those Vitor! well at least the first link is promising - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your second link doesn't have anything about it - searches on the site give this and this. The first link, from "BRPress", doesn't quote any official source for its information. If Sony had this on their website but have taken it off, I think BRPress in Brazil may be behind the times rather than ahead of them. There isn't enough here to satisfy WP:NALBUMS - wait until it is actually released and acquires some independent comment. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, I've begun to lose interest in this. For the record, the Portuguese site states that the release date has not been set for the album yet, but is due by October. This may be why it has not been included with the upcoming release of the 7 other "essential mixes" (some of which have articles on WP) Hopefully, my final words on the matter:
 * If this is in fact an arguement of WP:CRYSTAL, I would say that it may be hammer resilient. It has cover artwork, a tracklisting, approximate release date (with.... controversy!!) If it should be deleted because the release is between a month and two months away, besides the other information we have at hand which opposes the criteria for deletion... delete it. It will be rebuilt before you know it.
 * If this is a matter of notability or WP:IDONTLIKE, I am curious as to why 3 other EP's have not been considered by the nominator for deletion; IMO and prediction, a full album like this remix will likely have higher sales than what is claimed (without citation) in the other three articles. If Control Room – Live EP, Live Acoustic (Avril Lavigne EP), and Angus Drive get AFD'd, I would support deleting the "Essential Mix" article, as we would at least be consistent: Major label release (tentatively for E.M. and uncertainty in its official release should look back at bullet 1. above regarding WP:CRYSTAL), notable artist. That's what they are riding on, that's what "Essential Mixes" is riding on. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As a correction, the Portuguese site does have a confirmed date for the remix album of September 20th. Avril's fourth official album has yet to be given an official title or release date (which is due by October).  My opinion on the EPs are delete as well (if you wanted to know).  They are stubs which have no chance of growing and have little to no reliable third party sources.  ~ [  Scott M. Howard  ] ~ [  Talk  ]:[  Contribs  ] ~  18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha Ok, my Portuguese is not as good as my Spanish, which is... not that good. ha Anyway, I'll put those for now. And what I dislike most about this is my personal desire to keep albums/EP's like these, but my need for consistency, which must abide by current policy... - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Portuguese (actually Brazilian) site does say 20 Sep, but I wouldn't call that "confirmed" as they give no source; yes, it may pass WP:HAMMER, but what it doesn't pass is WP:V - the artist's site, the only source cited in the article, doesn't mention it, nor does her record label. There is no reliable source, just internet rumour. References are not optional. JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're are so nut. I quit this article. That's why i don't contribute here(wiki-en). Vitor Mazuco  Msg 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey now. Wikipedia is based greatly on discussion, but that means you need to be open to any outcome. If this article is deleted, it doesn't mean it won't return in the future. It's the notability we're arguing about. If and when the album is released, it may or may not gain greater notability. If it does, then the article can be reinstated. There is no reason to take things so personally. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  20:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.